good news for you intel people

[koldapu]

no doubt about that . . . but i dont like DDR2 . . . .

 

[xotix]

ynot koldapu??

 

[koldapu]

too expensive right now . . . plus no real advantage that i see . . .

 

[xotix]

ok, fair enuf

 

[WQ87]

The advantage might be applied later on. The Prescott saw it's advantage over the Northwood in Doom 3, 7 months after prescott's release.

 

[koldapu]

maybe by 2006 . . .

only ddr2 ram i would consider right now would be DDR2 667 . . . because of the high latencies in DDR2 (fastest I could find was 4-4-4-12!), 667 cancels that lag out . . .

DDR2 400 and 533 are not worth it . . .

maybe 533 if they lowered the latencies . . .

 

[WQ87]

Actually, i found out online that DDR2 advantage is the higher bus speed and the little power consumption compared to regular DDR (not that any matters since of it's high latency and DDR doesn't consume that much either).

 

[koldapu]

its 2.6V vs. like 1.8 . . .

 

[koldapu]

i may consider DDR2, but only if PC-5300 (667) is highly available . . .

although, it is good for 64-bit technologies, whose memory capabilities are in the exabytes . . . DDR2 dimms can go upto 4GB each . . . . .

hmm . . . actually, i just began to like DDR2!! BUT ONLY PC-5300!!

 

[jolancer]

i remember seeing somewere... that DDR2 has higher latency but it doesnt afect it... something about pin count, and something, makes DDR2 proccess much faster then DDR even though it has higher latency.

i know thats very vague(i dont remember the specifics), but in general it was stating that DDR2 is faster even with low latency's, i do not know however, if thy were refering to any DDR2 speed, or only at a sertain point. it could be at any speed.